For Wololo Re Critical Thinking About Christianity

[mymistake]

"I am just as skeptical and as much of a critical thinker as all of you, it's just that I come to different conclusions."  - Wololo

 

Oh really?

 

Please tell us which core Christian doctrines you questioned and (if applicable) what logical reasons drove you to conclude the doctrines were true?

 

Let's start with the basics:

 

1 Jesus exists

 

2 God exists

 

3 The Bible isn't the word of men

 

4 God actually cares about what humans do

 

Let's see your critical thinking shine.

[ironhorse]

I'll take number 2:

 

 

I believe God exists.

 

I will never believe that this universe and the life I see on earth all came from nothing and just evolved.

[bornagainathiest]

I'll take number 2:

 

 

I believe God exists.

 

I will never believe that this universe and the life I see on earth all came from nothing and just evolved.

 

 

I'll take number 2:

 

 

I believe God exists.

 

I will never believe that this universe and the life I see on earth all came from nothing and just evolved.

 

Then you have closed your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong.

 

You have also discounted the possibility that the universe has always existed, in one form or another.

 

I see no hope of meaningful dialog with Ironhorse ...especially given that you break your promises and cannot be trusted.

[duderonomy]

Good for you Ironhorse. God's putting an extra family jewel in your hat in Heaven right now just for you taking such a mighty and unexpected stand.

[sdelsolray]

I'll take number 2:

 

 

I believe God exists.

 

I will never believe that this universe and the life I see on earth all came from nothing and just evolved.

A statement of belief.

A statement of disbelief.

A claim that the universe and life visible on the planet Earth came from nothing.

A argument from incredulity fallacy.

 

Weak.  Very weak.

 

But welcome back Ironhorse!

[mymistake]

I'll take number 2:

 

 

I believe God exists.

 

I will never believe that this universe and the life I see on earth all came from nothing and just evolved.

 

 

Your critical thinking is so bright I got to wear shades.

 

But thanks for making an effort.  I guess Wololo's critical thinking is needed elsewhere since the Holy Spirit had directed him to not answer.  Or at least not yet.

 

 

 

(By the way most people don't think our universe came from nothing.  The Big Bang theory is that our universe came from an expanding singularity.  That isn't nothing.)

[Aiyana]

Ironhorse, why does your belief that the universe didn't come from nothing, lead to belief in the god of Christianity?

[Vigile]

I'll take number 2:

 

 

I believe God exists.

 

I will never believe that this universe and the life I see on earth all came from nothing and just evolved.

 

You seem to misunderstand the OP.  Sharing your beliefs isn't what he asked. 

[mymistake]

 

I'll take number 2:

 

 

I believe God exists.

 

I will never believe that this universe and the life I see on earth all came from nothing and just evolved.

 

You seem to misunderstand the OP.  Sharing your beliefs isn't what he asked. 

 

 

 

Oh he is doing the best he can.  Ironhorse should get a ribbon just for showing up.

[Wololo]

"I am just as skeptical and as much of a critical thinker as all of you, it's just that I come to different conclusions."  - Wololo

 

Oh really?

 

Please tell us which core Christian doctrines you questioned and (if applicable) what logical reasons drove you to conclude the doctrines were true?

 

Let's start with the basics:

 

1 Jesus exists

 

2 God exists

 

3 The Bible isn't the word of men

 

4 God actually cares about what humans do

 

Let's see your critical thinking shine.

 

Let's start with a little background. I was born into a Christian family so for almost my entire childhood, I was unquestioningly a Christian. A lot of people have a similar experience and nothing really changes til they get into adulthood. In my case, things started to change as soon as I became an adult. I was brought up to be a critical thinker instead of just taking everything I hear hook, line, and sinker. That's really what I think education is about...not so much preparing people for jobs, but instead making them into productive, thoughtful people. I do not fear questions and find myself asking them all the time. I can actually hit all 4 of those points. By no means have I completely worked them all out and there are still questions I'm trying to answer, but like the rest of my life, it's a process.

 

I'm actually going to start with your second point because that's the best starting point. God is plausible. Since time immemorial, humans have to some extent believed in some form of deity or deities. There seems to be something in us that is predisposed to that sort of belief. This is why it's not unreasonable or extraordinary to consider that there is a creator. I know that some of you want to dispute that the universe had a beginning, but for the sake of this discussion, we are going to assume that it does. Now being brought up a Christian, I'd always just assumed that there was God and that he was the creator. It wasn't until I had trials later on in life that I began to question whether or not my beliefs were valid, and there was a lot that I rejected. The problem was that the idea of God never really left. It never became weird to me. Like most people I desperately wanted him to intervene in some manner and waited in total silence. Many people take this is a sign to just abandon their beliefs, but I didn't want to assume that if there was a God that he has to intervene directly or communicate directly with me. I realized that I was putting the cart before the horse. I was trying to apply God to my life rather than actually determining his existence.

 

This concept of God was still an issue. I was not comfortable just taking the word of others for why I should believe. The Church was full of platitudes and tautologies. People there always assumed that God existed rather than actually trying to determine not only why they believed what they believed, but whether or not they were actually believing in something worthwhile. It was like they were comfortable sitting there in their blind faith, intentionally staying ignorant because they were afraid of being wrong. This was an attitude I abhorred. To me it was intellectually lazy. Don't give me platitudes, I want something compelling. Rejecting dogma was the first step on the journey of discovery. I had to evaluate the prospect of God. There were a lot of questions that needed answering. In order for God to be the creator, he had to exist outside the universe. If he was stuck inside, then he was bound by the laws of the universe and limited...and of course he would need a beginning. Those were problems I couldn't reconcile so they had to be tossed away. I concluded that God would have to exist as an entity outside of the universe (and therefore outside of space and time and such limitations). He would then be able to manifest himself as he wills.

 

I also needed to consider the question of why the universe is even here at all. I know we shouldn't assume that there must be a cause for the universe springing into existence, but the evidence around me pointed to the fact that it was most likely that there was indeed a cause...or else there would have to be a source for all of this energy. I concluded that there was more reason, given that the currently the Big Bang theory is the leading theory for the beginning of the universe (and we are not arguing about it here) to believe that there is a creator than not to believe there was a creator. As I understand it, the claim that there is a God creator is not extraordinary. Not only has it been a part of our humanity since time immemorial, but if there is supposed to be a beginning, it is most likely that there is a source or a cause. Of course, I had run into a problem. It wasn't provable. There was no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. It was a place I agreed with agnostics. The concept of God is something that cannot be proven either way. I was sitting with the burden of proof on me and only the plausibility of there being a creator.

 

This was something I grappled with for a long time...the idea that God is not provable. I had set out to find proof of God and instead found that if he were to exist, it wouldn't be provable. It was a sobering thought. I end up concluding that to my best understanding, God probably existed and created the universe. That was all I knew, and it was a belief held with an informed faith. I don't expect you to agree with my path or conclusion. Perhaps you want me to find more evidence. I'm not here on one side with you on the other. I have the same sorts of questions about the existence of God and it is not something that I know with true certainty. I do doubt it, it's just that I don't let the doubt rule me. In the face of something unprovable, I had to decide whether or not it was worth holding the belief in God.

 

Let's move on to the third point, as it's the next in my journey. Most Christians will tell you that the Bible is the word of God. The more I read it as an adult, the more childish that perspective looked...the more simplistic it seemed. I found errors and contradictions all over the place. How could anyone take it all literally? During my reading I stumbled across the beginning of the gospel of John and read it more thoroughly.

 

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." - John 1:14 ESV

 

John was in fact referring to the Word as being Jesus. This is something I still discuss with other Christians and is mostly irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not here to preach. Anyway, I concluded that according to what the Bible itself said, it was not the word of God (though it contained it). Instead of treating the Bible like a whole book, I started treating it like individual texts that were put together and it began to make far more sense. I evaluated the texts and realized that they were the testimony of my fellow man. It awakened my excitement for history and religion of all types. I started using the historical-critical method to evaluate the strength of the writings and found them to be very interesting. I found that things fit together much better. I still want to study other religions and other historical texts so that I can pull the core out of the religions and find what they have in common. I want to learn what it is about humans that makes us like this. I want to see if I can find truth that way. I'm not actually validating my beliefs this way, but that's because I questioned that the Bible was the word of God and realized that it wasn't.

 

This of course brings us back to the first thing you wanted me to have questioned. Jesus. He's...weird. There's something not quite normal, and that was the first thing that I thought when I evaluated him. Resurrection is an incredible claim. I've been over that one with you all though. We don't agree.

 

There's more to it than just the resurrection though. It's about what he stood for. When I read the story, it resonated with me. The focus on love for your fellow man and self-sacrifice as a response to our innate selfishness seemed fitting. I found that I couldn't question it. I just agreed with it in my soul. The man or divinity of Jesus is certainly debatable, but questioning it led me to dead ends. I'm convicted of it. Irrespective of God and Jesus and such, I'm quite convicted of what it stands for. I don't question my principles to death.

 

The last point is the one with the least certainty, and part of that is just because I'm not even certain God exists. You have the possibility of God existing as a creator, but as for whether or not he actually cares about us, that's a different story and I think that in the end, because he seems to intervene so infrequently we are left without much to go by. The issue here is that the question is a very subjective one. It's one that I'm perpetually asking myself (I'd have to be completely intellectually dishonest to ignore it). In this case I can't make an argument because it's something that will vary from person to person and is subjective. If you don't feel that if he were to exist that he would care, then there is nothing that would sway that. It is something you have to experience yourself. It is something fundamentally unknowable as it is. No matter how you look at it, you're taking the word of someone else. It has been my experience that he does (it seems that way for the most part). That isn't to say that I'm certain, but that I lean on the side of yes over no.

 

That's a non-answer, really...but I think that it's something that you should never claim to hold certainly, above all else. If you're certain God exists, that's fine, even if it's deluded, but to claim that he cares and you're absolutely certain of that is a lie.

 

I'm probably going to need to clarify things because this is a very large post.

[Vigile]

People have always believed in gods (ad populum fallacy) and I can't otherwise explain why the universe exists (god of the gaps fallacy), in addition to appeals to emotion are quite the opposite of critical thinking my man. 

 

You appear to me to be a smart guy.  You're just not using your thinking cap. 

[Roz]

This says it all: "Instead of treating the Bible like a whole book, I started treating it like individual texts that were put together and it began to make far more sense. I evaluated the texts and realized that they were the testimony of my fellow man."

 

Not one point did it occur that these people could be writing fiction.  No god required, just humans writing about gods and goddesses.  Have you ever studied ancient jewish religion?  How the jewish religion came to be, and how the christian religion start? 

 

Stop taking your religious text at face value and saying 'these must be humans recording real events that happened.'  Study history in a broader context and realize the origins of the religion itself. 

[Roz]

Let's start with a little background. I was born into a Christian family so for almost my entire childhood, I was unquestioningly a Christian. A lot of people have a similar experience and nothing really changes til they get into adulthood. In my case, things started to change as soon as I became an adult. I was brought up to be a critical thinker instead of just taking everything I hear hook, line, and sinker. That's really what I think education is about...not so much preparing people for jobs, but instead making them into productive, thoughtful people. I do not fear questions and find myself asking them all the time. I can actually hit all 4 of those points. By no means have I completely worked them all out and there are still questions I'm trying to answer, but like the rest of my life, it's a process.

--Christian background.  Check.

 

I'm actually going to start with your second point because that's the best starting point. God is plausible. --Note that God is used as a singular proper noun.  A very specific god.-- Since time immemorial, humans have to some extent believed in some form of deity or deities. There seems to be something in us that is predisposed to that sort of belief. This is why it's not unreasonable or extraordinary to consider that there is a creator. --why not creators?  Why singular?  Although since you brought up your christian upbringing that undoubtedly is the creator you're referring to.-- I know that some of you want to dispute that the universe had a beginning, but for the sake of this discussion, we are going to assume that it does. Now being brought up a Christian, I'd always just assumed that there was God and that he was the creator. It wasn't until I had trials later on in life that I began to question whether or not my beliefs were valid, and there was a lot that I rejected. --Can you give examples of what you've rejected--  The problem was that the idea of God never really left. It never became weird to me. Like most people I desperately wanted him to intervene in some manner and waited in total silence. Many people take this is a sign to just abandon their beliefs, but I didn't want to assume that if there was a God that he has to intervene directly or communicate directly with me. I realized that I was putting the cart before the horse. I was trying to apply God to my life rather than actually determining his existence.  --This whole paragraph is taking a very deistic view of that 'god' and trying to shoehorn it into the theistic perspective of christianity--

 

This concept of God was still an issue. I was not comfortable just taking the word of others for why I should believe. The Church was full of platitudes and tautologies. People there always assumed that God existed rather than actually trying to determine not only why they believed what they believed, but whether or not they were actually believing in something worthwhile. It was like they were comfortable sitting there in their blind faith, intentionally staying ignorant because they were afraid of being wrong. This was an attitude I abhorred. To me it was intellectually lazy. Don't give me platitudes, I want something compelling.  --This is one of the first things I'll agree on, although you've shown you haven't really questioned it below-- Rejecting dogma was the first step on the journey of discovery. I had to evaluate the prospect of God. There were a lot of questions that needed answering. In order for God to be the creator, he had to exist outside the universe. If he was stuck inside, then he was bound by the laws of the universe and limited...and of course he would need a beginning. Those were problems I couldn't reconcile so they had to be tossed away. I concluded that God would have to exist as an entity outside of the universe (and therefore outside of space and time and such limitations). He would then be able to manifest himself as he wills. 

 

I also needed to consider the question of why the universe is even here at all. I know we shouldn't assume that there must be a cause for the universe springing into existence, but the evidence around me pointed to the fact that it was most likely that there was indeed a cause...or else there would have to be a source for all of this energy. I concluded that there was more reason, given that the currently the Big Bang theory is the leading theory for the beginning of the universe (and we are not arguing about it here) to believe that there is a creator than not to believe there was a creator. As I understand it, the claim that there is a God creator is not extraordinary. Not only has it been a part of our humanity since time immemorial, but if there is supposed to be a beginning, it is most likely that there is a source or a cause. Of course, I had run into a problem. It wasn't provable. There was no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. It was a place I agreed with agnostics. The concept of God is something that cannot be proven either way. I was sitting with the burden of proof on me and only the plausibility of there being a creator. --What created the universe?  Must be a god.  What created that god then?  He's always been...  classic--

 

This was something I grappled with for a long time...the idea that God is not provable. I had set out to find proof of God and instead found that if he were to exist, it wouldn't be provable. It was a sobering thought. I end up concluding that to my best understanding, God probably existed and created the universe. That was all I knew, and it was a belief held with an informed faith. I don't expect you to agree with my path or conclusion. Perhaps you want me to find more evidence. I'm not here on one side with you on the other. I have the same sorts of questions about the existence of God and it is not something that I know with true certainty. I do doubt it, it's just that I don't let the doubt rule me. In the face of something unprovable, I had to decide whether or not it was worth holding the belief in God. 

 

Let's move on to the third point, as it's the next in my journey. Most Christians will tell you that the Bible is the word of God. The more I read it as an adult, the more childish that perspective looked...the more simplistic it seemed. I found errors and contradictions all over the place. How could anyone take it all literally? During my reading I stumbled across the beginning of the gospel of John and read it more thoroughly.

 

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." - John 1:14 ESV

 

John was in fact referring to the Word as being Jesus. This is something I still discuss with other Christians and is mostly irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not here to preach. Anyway, I concluded that according to what the Bible itself said, it was not the word of God (though it contained it). Instead of treating the Bible like a whole book, I started treating it like individual texts that were put together and it began to make far more sense. I evaluated the texts and realized that they were the testimony of my fellow man. It awakened my excitement for history and religion of all types. I started using the historical-critical method to evaluate the strength of the writings and found them to be very interesting. I found that things fit together much better. --Historical/critical method... you basically take the books as 'testimonies of people' and then try to imagine the historical settings of their time and why they wrote like this... good, but you haven't considered that there might not be any god involved at all, that these were people writing stories down, just like how the greeks wrote out stories concerning their deities.  The problem I see is that you still cling to your childhood religion instead of being open to the possibility that it just might be fiction like the Odyssey.-- I still want to study other religions and other historical texts so that I can pull the core out of the religions and find what they have in common. I want to learn what it is about humans that makes us like this. I want to see if I can find truth that way. I'm not actually validating my beliefs this way, but that's because I questioned that the Bible was the word of God and realized that it wasn't.

 

This of course brings us back to the first thing you wanted me to have questioned. Jesus. He's...weird. There's something not quite normal, and that was the first thing that I thought when I evaluated him. Resurrection is an incredible claim. I've been over that one with you all though. We don't agree.

 

There's more to it than just the resurrection though. It's about what he stood for. When I read the story, it resonated with me. The focus on love for your fellow man and self-sacrifice as a response to our innate selfishness seemed fitting. I found that I couldn't question it. I just agreed with it in my soul. The man or divinity of Jesus is certainly debatable, but questioning it led me to dead ends. I'm convicted of it. Irrespective of God and Jesus and such, I'm quite convicted of what it stands for. I don't question my principles to death.  --A self proclaimed Radical Orthodox christian open to the possibility of jesus not being divine?  Interesting.  Do you also consider that he might not even be real?  Just another fictional character in a collection of fables?  Aesop has a lot of stories filled with morals, but they're just stories.  It's one thing to be interested in ancient literature.  It's quite another to claim to be for ROC infiltrating every facet of governance.--

 

The last point is the one with the least certainty, and part of that is just because I'm not even certain God exists. --Again, attempting to hide to the deistic concept of god-- You have the possibility of God existing as a creator, but as for whether or not he actually cares about us, that's a different story and I think that in the end, because he seems to intervene so infrequently we are left without much to go by. The issue here is that the question is a very subjective one. It's one that I'm perpetually asking myself (I'd have to be completely intellectually dishonest to ignore it). In this case I can't make an argument because it's something that will vary from person to person and is subjective. If you don't feel that if he were to exist that he would care, then there is nothing that would sway that. It is something you have to experience yourself. It is something fundamentally unknowable as it is. No matter how you look at it, you're taking the word of someone else. It has been my experience that he does (it seems that way for the most part). That isn't to say that I'm certain, but that I lean on the side of yes over no.

 

That's a non-answer, really...but I think that it's something that you should never claim to hold certainly, above all else. If you're certain God exists, that's fine, even if it's deluded, but to claim that he cares and you're absolutely certain of that is a lie.

 

I'm probably going to need to clarify things because this is a very large post.

 

 

Can you list any other religion you've studied and can you list your reasons why you're a christian and not x religion instead?

[mydisplayname]

I'll take number 2:

 

 

I believe God exists.

 

I will never believe that this universe and the life I see on earth all came from nothing and just evolved.

 

I never imagined that I would be a non believer. Somehow that happened. 

 

It's the ones who actually take religion seriously that ultimately leaves.

 

Welcome back.

[Geezer]

Christians that post here are excellent examples of what happens to a human being when they've been programed to think in some specific way. They have no actual evidence that will validate their position, so that leaves them with opinions that are articulated as beliefs, but from their point of view their beliefs are the same thing as proof.

 

They are convinced their "beliefs" should be interpreted as historical fact by non-believers. They are also convinced "their " beliefs are superior to any other religious groups "beliefs". Since they have been indoctrinated to think their beliefs are the same as independently validated evidence; they are mystified that non-believers are so blind and close minded as to be unable to see the obvious that God and Jesus are real and the Bible is the literal written words of their God.

 

Discussing religion with a born again Christian is about as productive as discussing physics with an infant.

[bornagainathiest]

So what about Genesis, Wololo?  

 

Please deal with Genesis first, before you deal with Jesus and the Gospels.  Cause and Effect, remember?

 

The historicity of the Fall (Cause) creating the need for Jesus to die for the sins of the world (Effect).

 

Without a cause Jesus' words, "It is finished!" (John 19 : 30) make no sense.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[mymistake]

May I remind you Wololo that the claim you are defending here is "I am just as skeptical and as much of a critical thinker as all of you, it's just that I come to different conclusions." 

 

I suspect that regarding your religion you suspend critical thinking.  Wouldn't you agree?

 

 

As an example let's look at the Oracle at Delphi.  The critical thinking approach starts with Apollo is a myth.  The prophet and whoever run the location are just ordinary people with perhaps some scam issues and perhaps some mental health issues.  It's skepticism.

 

Then if Apollo showed up and you were allowed to take photographs and video that objectively demonstrated the Sun God is real that would be evidence that leads to the conclusion that Apollo is real.  Perhaps Apollo would demonstrate a miracle the whole world could experience.  Say Apollo could use his cosmic power to turn the sun purple for a day.  Everyone would see it and could record it so we would know it is objective.

 

 

Now I do admire the fact that you gave an extended answer.  That took guts.  But look at the non-critical, non-skeptical thinking you display:

 

"Since time immemorial, humans have to some extent believed in some form of deity or deities. There seems to be something in us that is predisposed to that sort of belief. This is why it's not unreasonable or extraordinary to consider that there is a creator."

 

and . . 

 

"In order for God to be the creator, he had to exist outside the universe. If he was stuck inside, then he was bound by the laws of the universe and limited...and of course he would need a beginning. Those were problems I couldn't reconcile so they had to be tossed away. I concluded that God would have to exist as an entity outside of the universe (and therefore outside of space and time and such limitations). He would then be able to manifest himself as he wills."

 

and . . 

 

"As I understand it, the claim that there is a God creator is not extraordinary." 

 

and . . .

 

"The concept of God is something that cannot be proven either way."

 

 

Do you actually think of these statements as skeptical or as critical thinking?

[directionless]

Wololo, that was a good answer IMO.

 

As Roz pointed-out, you mostly seem to focus on proving the possible existence of a deistic creator God and then concluding that it is rational for you to be a Christian. (I know your post touched on some other issues, but mostly you are debating deism.)

 

I am focusing on the evolution of Judaism and Christianity from the earliest polytheism forward to Jesus, the charismatic Jewish exorcist/healer who predicted that the Kingdom of Heaven would be coming very soon (2000 years ago). I find this helpful.

 

We have evidence that Judaism is just another religion and we have evidence that Jesus was just another religious cult leader. There is no need for abstract philosophical proofs. The historical facts speak for themselves IMO.

 

Of course, if Christianity works for you then that is great. I don't want to be negative about Christianity or Christians.

[Leo]

Wololo and Ironhorse:

If there must be a cause for the universe, then there must be a cause for the cause. This is not just regreso ad infinitum, as some Christian apologists argue. The problem is the very means by which you get the argument: The universe is so complex it must have been designed. That by definition means whoever designed it must also be that complex, and you'll get designers all the way down.

Now, outside of religion: We have designed systems that can do a lot more than an individual can. It's definitely going to be within Wololo's lifetime: artificially intelligent and maybe even sentient robots in physical form. We already have various cloud systems. Many of our systems are in fact greater than we are. The idea that the created is always lesser than the creator is not based on design principles. If we have machines who can outperform an army of humans, then in that context, we have a machine which is greater than a human.

The classic "creator is always greater than created" argument from religion doesn't really bear out in reality.

 

Oh, and RE: "deciding" to be an unbeliever, that simply isn't true. I found myself out to be a nonbeliever. I went through a ten year "dry" period, longer if you count some things, and embraced it as a way to improve discipline of mind inside the Christian faith. I imagine a lot of us went through the whole "Prayer doesn't change your circumstance, it only changes your perspective on the circumstance," a very bald-faced admission that there is no external force doing anything about anything.

I encourage you to read the Karen Armstrong series of books, starting with A Short History of Myth, then The History of God, and finally, A Battle for God.

These are great descriptions of the situation RE: the desert Yahweh religions.

[♦ ficino ♦]

^^^^ Leo, if I'd run into you decades ago, my life would have been a lot simpler! Very lucid exposition.

[RipVanWinkle]

Wololo:I think you have made a valiant effort and have put a lot of thought into your position. If the faithful put half of the thought that you have done in their religion, I believe Xtianity would lose most if not all of its harmful influence.

 

It is the exclusivity of Xtianity that destroys any possibility of it being actually sanctioned by god, if god is good. If god is not good, then I can

think of no crueler religion for this evil god to endorse than xtianity. But if one believes that god is good, I fail to see how this god could have

sanctioned xtianity with is exclusivity to all who believe in the cruel saving "grace" of the sacrifice of Jesus, a human being. An animal type sacrifice

typical of uncivilized man. Plus the condemnation to hell of every human who ever lived who did not believe right,even though god offered no proof of the

truthfulness of that required belief. This from a god who knew before creation what would happen to the vast majority of humans who don't believe right. So he created these hell bound souls fully aware he would later condemn them to the eternal fire.

Belief in a god like this is acceptable to only a non-thinking person, an animal.

 

Since you have said that you don't believe that all of the bible is god's infallible word (or so I understood)it is impossible to know what the exact

nature is of the god that you believe is plausible. You said that you believe some of god's word is in the bible, as I understand it. Well, what is in the

bible that is not god's word and what part is? And what are the characteristics of this god which are not described in the bible? In other words, what are you left with in the end? bill

[Wololo]

People have always believed in gods (ad populum fallacy) and I can't otherwise explain why the universe exists (god of the gaps fallacy), in addition to appeals to emotion are quite the opposite of critical thinking my man. 

 

You appear to me to be a smart guy.  You're just not using your thinking cap. 

 

Logical fallacies exist for proofs. I'm arguing that perpetual popularity makes something reasonable to us. I'm saying that the idea of God is reasonable and not extraordinary. We have a predisposition to it, so to call it outrageous or absurd is just not true.

 

I hate God of/in the gaps. I hate it. It's intellectually dishonest to put God into the gaps of anything we don't know. I have a little more on this when I respond to someone below who talks about deism.

 

This says it all: "Instead of treating the Bible like a whole book, I started treating it like individual texts that were put together and it began to make far more sense. I evaluated the texts and realized that they were the testimony of my fellow man."

 

Not one point did it occur that these people could be writing fiction.  No god required, just humans writing about gods and goddesses.  Have you ever studied ancient jewish religion?  How the jewish religion came to be, and how the christian religion start? 

 

Stop taking your religious text at face value and saying 'these must be humans recording real events that happened.'  Study history in a broader context and realize the origins of the religion itself. 

 

I've been over this with some of you before, but you don't pay attention. People do not die as martyrs for things they know are lies. I'm not sure how I could be clearer. Every single one of the original followers after the death of Jesus went to his or her grave believing what they wrote. If they had made it all up, they would have recanted. Someone would have recanted. None of them did. Clearly they were fervent believers in their own writing. If they weren't absolutely certain in what they wrote, they would have given it up.

 

When I say I've evaluated things, I'm not making a joke to you people. I have thought about this. I have questioned it aggressively. It's hard to put into words, but not everyone that stays a Christian is just 'deluded' and 'stupid'. We don't deceive ourselves. Not everyone mirrors your experience of deconversion. Perhaps my arguments don't hold the same stock to you because you measure things differently. I think that people willing to take those sorts of beliefs to their grave is very brave. You might be able to make an argument that they were deluded or had some form of psychological problem, but the argument that it's all false and made up is nonsense.

 

We really don't know how religion came to be. Some anthropologists have tried to assign it to evolution, but their arguments are far from concrete.

 

 

Let's start with a little background. I was born into a Christian family so for almost my entire childhood, I was unquestioningly a Christian. A lot of people have a similar experience and nothing really changes til they get into adulthood. In my case, things started to change as soon as I became an adult. I was brought up to be a critical thinker instead of just taking everything I hear hook, line, and sinker. That's really what I think education is about...not so much preparing people for jobs, but instead making them into productive, thoughtful people. I do not fear questions and find myself asking them all the time. I can actually hit all 4 of those points. By no means have I completely worked them all out and there are still questions I'm trying to answer, but like the rest of my life, it's a process.

--Christian background.  Check.

 

I'm actually going to start with your second point because that's the best starting point. God is plausible. --Note that God is used as a singular proper noun.  A very specific god.-- Since time immemorial, humans have to some extent believed in some form of deity or deities. There seems to be something in us that is predisposed to that sort of belief. This is why it's not unreasonable or extraordinary to consider that there is a creator. --why not creators?  Why singular?  Although since you brought up your christian upbringing that undoubtedly is the creator you're referring to.-- I know that some of you want to dispute that the universe had a beginning, but for the sake of this discussion, we are going to assume that it does. Now being brought up a Christian, I'd always just assumed that there was God and that he was the creator. It wasn't until I had trials later on in life that I began to question whether or not my beliefs were valid, and there was a lot that I rejected. --Can you give examples of what you've rejected--  The problem was that the idea of God never really left. It never became weird to me. Like most people I desperately wanted him to intervene in some manner and waited in total silence. Many people take this is a sign to just abandon their beliefs, but I didn't want to assume that if there was a God that he has to intervene directly or communicate directly with me. I realized that I was putting the cart before the horse. I was trying to apply God to my life rather than actually determining his existence.  --This whole paragraph is taking a very deistic view of that 'god' and trying to shoehorn it into the theistic perspective of christianity--

 

This concept of God was still an issue. I was not comfortable just taking the word of others for why I should believe. The Church was full of platitudes and tautologies. People there always assumed that God existed rather than actually trying to determine not only why they believed what they believed, but whether or not they were actually believing in something worthwhile. It was like they were comfortable sitting there in their blind faith, intentionally staying ignorant because they were afraid of being wrong. This was an attitude I abhorred. To me it was intellectually lazy. Don't give me platitudes, I want something compelling.  --This is one of the first things I'll agree on, although you've shown you haven't really questioned it below-- Rejecting dogma was the first step on the journey of discovery. I had to evaluate the prospect of God. There were a lot of questions that needed answering. In order for God to be the creator, he had to exist outside the universe. If he was stuck inside, then he was bound by the laws of the universe and limited...and of course he would need a beginning. Those were problems I couldn't reconcile so they had to be tossed away. I concluded that God would have to exist as an entity outside of the universe (and therefore outside of space and time and such limitations). He would then be able to manifest himself as he wills. 

 

I also needed to consider the question of why the universe is even here at all. I know we shouldn't assume that there must be a cause for the universe springing into existence, but the evidence around me pointed to the fact that it was most likely that there was indeed a cause...or else there would have to be a source for all of this energy. I concluded that there was more reason, given that the currently the Big Bang theory is the leading theory for the beginning of the universe (and we are not arguing about it here) to believe that there is a creator than not to believe there was a creator. As I understand it, the claim that there is a God creator is not extraordinary. Not only has it been a part of our humanity since time immemorial, but if there is supposed to be a beginning, it is most likely that there is a source or a cause. Of course, I had run into a problem. It wasn't provable. There was no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. It was a place I agreed with agnostics. The concept of God is something that cannot be proven either way. I was sitting with the burden of proof on me and only the plausibility of there being a creator. --What created the universe?  Must be a god.  What created that god then?  He's always been...  classic--

 

This was something I grappled with for a long time...the idea that God is not provable. I had set out to find proof of God and instead found that if he were to exist, it wouldn't be provable. It was a sobering thought. I end up concluding that to my best understanding, God probably existed and created the universe. That was all I knew, and it was a belief held with an informed faith. I don't expect you to agree with my path or conclusion. Perhaps you want me to find more evidence. I'm not here on one side with you on the other. I have the same sorts of questions about the existence of God and it is not something that I know with true certainty. I do doubt it, it's just that I don't let the doubt rule me. In the face of something unprovable, I had to decide whether or not it was worth holding the belief in God. 

 

Let's move on to the third point, as it's the next in my journey. Most Christians will tell you that the Bible is the word of God. The more I read it as an adult, the more childish that perspective looked...the more simplistic it seemed. I found errors and contradictions all over the place. How could anyone take it all literally? During my reading I stumbled across the beginning of the gospel of John and read it more thoroughly.

 

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." - John 1:14 ESV

 

John was in fact referring to the Word as being Jesus. This is something I still discuss with other Christians and is mostly irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not here to preach. Anyway, I concluded that according to what the Bible itself said, it was not the word of God (though it contained it). Instead of treating the Bible like a whole book, I started treating it like individual texts that were put together and it began to make far more sense. I evaluated the texts and realized that they were the testimony of my fellow man. It awakened my excitement for history and religion of all types. I started using the historical-critical method to evaluate the strength of the writings and found them to be very interesting. I found that things fit together much better. --Historical/critical method... you basically take the books as 'testimonies of people' and then try to imagine the historical settings of their time and why they wrote like this... good, but you haven't considered that there might not be any god involved at all, that these were people writing stories down, just like how the greeks wrote out stories concerning their deities.  The problem I see is that you still cling to your childhood religion instead of being open to the possibility that it just might be fiction like the Odyssey.-- I still want to study other religions and other historical texts so that I can pull the core out of the religions and find what they have in common. I want to learn what it is about humans that makes us like this. I want to see if I can find truth that way. I'm not actually validating my beliefs this way, but that's because I questioned that the Bible was the word of God and realized that it wasn't.

 

This of course brings us back to the first thing you wanted me to have questioned. Jesus. He's...weird. There's something not quite normal, and that was the first thing that I thought when I evaluated him. Resurrection is an incredible claim. I've been over that one with you all though. We don't agree.

 

There's more to it than just the resurrection though. It's about what he stood for. When I read the story, it resonated with me. The focus on love for your fellow man and self-sacrifice as a response to our innate selfishness seemed fitting. I found that I couldn't question it. I just agreed with it in my soul. The man or divinity of Jesus is certainly debatable, but questioning it led me to dead ends. I'm convicted of it. Irrespective of God and Jesus and such, I'm quite convicted of what it stands for. I don't question my principles to death.  --A self proclaimed Radical Orthodox christian open to the possibility of jesus not being divine?  Interesting.  Do you also consider that he might not even be real?  Just another fictional character in a collection of fables?  Aesop has a lot of stories filled with morals, but they're just stories.  It's one thing to be interested in ancient literature.  It's quite another to claim to be for ROC infiltrating every facet of governance.--

 

The last point is the one with the least certainty, and part of that is just because I'm not even certain God exists. --Again, attempting to hide to the deistic concept of god-- You have the possibility of God existing as a creator, but as for whether or not he actually cares about us, that's a different story and I think that in the end, because he seems to intervene so infrequently we are left without much to go by. The issue here is that the question is a very subjective one. It's one that I'm perpetually asking myself (I'd have to be completely intellectually dishonest to ignore it). In this case I can't make an argument because it's something that will vary from person to person and is subjective. If you don't feel that if he were to exist that he would care, then there is nothing that would sway that. It is something you have to experience yourself. It is something fundamentally unknowable as it is. No matter how you look at it, you're taking the word of someone else. It has been my experience that he does (it seems that way for the most part). That isn't to say that I'm certain, but that I lean on the side of yes over no.

 

That's a non-answer, really...but I think that it's something that you should never claim to hold certainly, above all else. If you're certain God exists, that's fine, even if it's deluded, but to claim that he cares and you're absolutely certain of that is a lie.

 

I'm probably going to need to clarify things because this is a very large post.

 

 

Can you list any other religion you've studied and can you list your reasons why you're a christian and not x religion instead?

 

 

Why not more creators? Good question. We don't know for certain. There are a philosophical reasons I don't believe that's the case, but those are for another time.

 

I rejected the Trinity as persons (polytheism if you ask me and doesn't make logical sense according to our very own scriptures). I rejected the doctrine of eternal hellfire (a wicked Medieval doctrine that contradicts the entire purpose of Christianity) I rejected the condemnation of homosexuality and gender uncertainty (though I am definitively male and straight). I rejected young earth creationism (contrary to science, our cultural understanding of the Hebrews, and the wording of the book of Genesis). I rejected a literal worldwide flood (beyond the realm of all reason. A regional flood makes far more sense.) Those are the things I can list off quickly, and I'm sure if I searched a little further, I'd remember at least a few more.

 

Not once have I said that I am certain God exists and is the creator. I've tried to explain that it isn't something 'provable'...meaning 100% certainty. The concept itself is not provable. Does that mean it's not worth our time? By no means. It just means that no matter what, some faith is involved (which I would argue everyone has to some degree about something or other.) I do believe there is a single God and that he (which is the gender I default to regardless of how irrelevant it is to use a gender) is the creator. These are things that are extensions of my beliefs and we are far away from explaining them.

 

We'll get to the silly "what created God? argument a few posts down my response.

 

Of course I doubt it. Whenever you point out problems or potential contentions, I'm right in there studying them. You don't see what happens on my end of the screen because I just type words to you. There's a reason I'm here. I want a challenge. I want something to test my beliefs. If I wanted to stay ignorant and foolish, I would never have come here. What I'm not doing is throwing the Bible out the window because it was written by fallible men. Not to mention, the Bible is not here to prove the existence of God. The Bible has done its job very well. It has set the groundwork for my principles and morality. It has convinced me of my problems (that are many), and provided a potential solution...which I have found to be quite effective. In reality, I've moved past that. I'm firm in my conscience. It has come time for me to truly test my beliefs on God and Jesus and Christianity so I'm seeking out debate. I'm skeptical like you are, just not the same extent. I don't try to be objective, because such a thing does not exist for us. I do attempt to be objective, but I have found it to be fruitless in many ways. I am a human with a culture and an environment. I cannot escape my humanity, nor can I escape my own mind. I have to make do with what I have...the perspectives of other people and my own inner challenging.

 

I have very little doubt that Jesus was a real man. Most respectable historians don't argue against it (though some remain that do). His divinity is certainly questionable, but his existence is something I have long concluded is probably true.

 

Aesop's fables are very interesting. The difficulty with those is that they are not an attempt to simulate reality. They are merely stories where the author intended to convey a point, not write about actual events.

 

I've said before that I believe in firm separation of church and state. There are a lot of good reasons to keep those two apart. Radical Orthodoxy is more an attempt to expose the weaknesses of post-modern philosophy and especially deconstructionism (from people such as Foucault and Derrida).

 

I'll get to deism a bit further on.

 

Christians that post here are excellent examples of what happens to a human being when they've been programed to think in some specific way. They have no actual evidence that will validate their position, so that leaves them with opinions that are articulated as beliefs, but from their point of view their beliefs are the same thing as proof.

 

They are convinced their "beliefs" should be interpreted as historical fact by non-believers. They are also convinced "their " beliefs are superior to any other religious groups "beliefs". Since they have been indoctrinated to think their beliefs are the same as independently validated evidence; they are mystified that non-believers are so blind and close minded as to be unable to see the obvious that God and Jesus are real and the Bible is the literal written words of their God.

 

Discussing religion with a born again Christian is about as productive as discussing physics with an infant.

 

How do you know we've been programmed to think a certain way?

 

What you want is fully empirical evidence (if I'm right...bit of an assumption there). If that's the case, you, like others here, need to prove why empirical evidence is the only valid form of evidence. I asked this question a while back in another thread and it was never touched.

 

We do have evidence. It's evidence you discount because you want to be as skeptical as possible about everything religious. You do everything you possibly can to discredit the writers of the books of the Bible. You critique it far more harshly than any other group of historical texts (give me a non-religious example of a text you criticize more heavily). There is a small amount of empirical evidence. Not enough to be truly convincing, but enough to form a basis. The bulk of the evidence for Christianity is actually philosophical, where different frameworks clash. Of course, you likely think that empiricism is the mother of all philosophies.

 

Oh, and thanks for the straw man. Great logic you got there.

 

So what about Genesis, Wololo?  

 

Please deal with Genesis first, before you deal with Jesus and the Gospels.  Cause and Effect, remember?

 

The historicity of the Fall (Cause) creating the need for Jesus to die for the sins of the world (Effect).

 

Without a cause Jesus' words, "It is finished!" (John 19 : 30) make no sense.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I thought I had posted that response I had saved. I'll look and see if I can find it. If necessary, I can probably go over Genesis, because you're right. It's important that we establish the fall before we can explain the relevance of what comes after.

 

May I remind you Wololo that the claim you are defending here is "I am just as skeptical and as much of a critical thinker as all of you, it's just that I come to different conclusions." 

 

I suspect that regarding your religion you suspend critical thinking.  Wouldn't you agree?

 

 

As an example let's look at the Oracle at Delphi.  The critical thinking approach starts with Apollo is a myth.  The prophet and whoever run the location are just ordinary people with perhaps some scam issues and perhaps some mental health issues.  It's skepticism.

 

Then if Apollo showed up and you were allowed to take photographs and video that objectively demonstrated the Sun God is real that would be evidence that leads to the conclusion that Apollo is real.  Perhaps Apollo would demonstrate a miracle the whole world could experience.  Say Apollo could use his cosmic power to turn the sun purple for a day.  Everyone would see it and could record it so we would know it is objective.

 

 

Now I do admire the fact that you gave an extended answer.  That took guts.  But look at the non-critical, non-skeptical thinking you display:

 

"Since time immemorial, humans have to some extent believed in some form of deity or deities. There seems to be something in us that is predisposed to that sort of belief. This is why it's not unreasonable or extraordinary to consider that there is a creator."

 

and . . 

 

"In order for God to be the creator, he had to exist outside the universe. If he was stuck inside, then he was bound by the laws of the universe and limited...and of course he would need a beginning. Those were problems I couldn't reconcile so they had to be tossed away. I concluded that God would have to exist as an entity outside of the universe (and therefore outside of space and time and such limitations). He would then be able to manifest himself as he wills."

 

and . . 

 

"As I understand it, the claim that there is a God creator is not extraordinary." 

 

and . . .

 

"The concept of God is something that cannot be proven either way."

 

 

Do you actually think of these statements as skeptical or as critical thinking?

 

No, I don't suspend critical thinking. I just don't suspend assent to the degree that most of you do. To me skepticism is good enough to cast things into doubt. It should not be used as our favourite tool to try and destroy things.

 

I gave you a very large post that was a general overview of my thought process. If you were expecting a perfectly reasoned and complete argument, you weren't going to get it. I don't have the time, nor the will to break everything down for all of you. I daresay most of you didn't even do that (it's a massive undertaking). All that would happen if I made a larger post, is that you'd find something that I assume or don't explain and doubt that...just attacking anything that's an assumption of any sort. Not only is that unproductive, but it's silly, because eventually we would have to fall back on axioms. That is way too much work. Maybe if you were a dear friend I would break it down more, but here I'm just not going to do it.

 

Wololo, that was a good answer IMO.

 

As Roz pointed-out, you mostly seem to focus on proving the possible existence of a deistic creator God and then concluding that it is rational for you to be a Christian. (I know your post touched on some other issues, but mostly you are debating deism.)

 

I am focusing on the evolution of Judaism and Christianity from the earliest polytheism forward to Jesus, the charismatic Jewish exorcist/healer who predicted that the Kingdom of Heaven would be coming very soon (2000 years ago). I find this helpful.

 

We have evidence that Judaism is just another religion and we have evidence that Jesus was just another religious cult leader. There is no need for abstract philosophical proofs. The historical facts speak for themselves IMO.

 

Of course, if Christianity works for you then that is great. I don't want to be negative about Christianity or Christians.

 

This is where I want to address Deism. In many ways, I fall into that category, but not all of them. The most important difference is that I use more than just the natural world to determine Truth (whenever I capitalize it, it's referring to objective truth). All of the tools that I use are derived from the natural world (as am I), but the natural world is not exclusively what I use.

 

The problem is that I find myself forced in discussion to rely only on the natural world with logic and reasoning because it is the only terms that others will use. I have criticisms for empiricism that tend to get ignored in the rush to attack me with well reasoned arguments. I look like a deist because my arguments are often exclusively focused on the world around me. Until I can establish (and we can agree, not just for the sake of hearing out my argument...because we will run into problems if you don't actually agree) that God is reasonable, you will not see the truth colours of my beliefs, nor how they are taken to their Christian conclusion. So yes, my arguments to you could be passed off as deist, merely because we have defined our terms as your terms. I think that there are good reasons to think as the deists do, but I think they miss the bigger picture.

 

Philosophical proofs (or at least discussion) are in addition to the foundation of empirical evidence. I will agree that we need some evidence. I concluded a while ago that there was enough evidence to consider God to be plausible. From there I had to move on and evaluate Christianity. I'm still not complete with that. It's probably a lifelong work.

 

Wololo and Ironhorse:

If there must be a cause for the universe, then there must be a cause for the cause. This is not just regreso ad infinitum, as some Christian apologists argue. The problem is the very means by which you get the argument: The universe is so complex it must have been designed. That by definition means whoever designed it must also be that complex, and you'll get designers all the way down.

Now, outside of religion: We have designed systems that can do a lot more than an individual can. It's definitely going to be within Wololo's lifetime: artificially intelligent and maybe even sentient robots in physical form. We already have various cloud systems. Many of our systems are in fact greater than we are. The idea that the created is always lesser than the creator is not based on design principles. If we have machines who can outperform an army of humans, then in that context, we have a machine which is greater than a human.

The classic "creator is always greater than created" argument from religion doesn't really bear out in reality.

 

Oh, and RE: "deciding" to be an unbeliever, that simply isn't true. I found myself out to be a nonbeliever. I went through a ten year "dry" period, longer if you count some things, and embraced it as a way to improve discipline of mind inside the Christian faith. I imagine a lot of us went through the whole "Prayer doesn't change your circumstance, it only changes your perspective on the circumstance," a very bald-faced admission that there is no external force doing anything about anything.

I encourage you to read the Karen Armstrong series of books, starting with A Short History of Myth, then The History of God, and finally, A Battle for God.

These are great descriptions of the situation RE: the desert Yahweh religions.

 

Nope. I think I went over this at some point somewhere. If God is to exist, we cannot assume that he has mass (especially since he would have to exist outside the universe). If he is outside the universe and has no mass, he is not bound by time. Time is something that only things with mass experience. For God, we cannot assume that he is bound by time. (QUICK NOTE: I determined that if God is the creator, the natural laws of our world would be derived from him, and hence he would abide by them. Sort of backwards there...) Essentially though, in a natural sense we tend to assume too much about God. Divine revelation is a whole different ballgame, but in an exclusively rational sense, God cannot be bound by time. To ask if he has a beginning is nonsensical since time only matters where there is mass.

 

I am fascinated by the prospect of intelligent AI (had a derpy edit to do there). I have long held that AI will never be able to think for itself and develop actual consciousness. For a long time I wanted to make a conscious computer that was more intellectually capable than me so that I could teach it and then, as it grew, learn from it. Even though I've moved on from wanting to do that, I still await the day when we have truly sophisticated AI that outpace us...as you said. The creator being lesser than the created. That itself is an interesting discussion.

 

Some of you may think me closed-minded, but I think that we are just seeing things differently based on our experiences. That's why I decided to come back. I want to learn from you, and I hope that one day perhaps you can learn from me.

[Roz]

All those sentences and sentence fragments just to basically say: "I'm a deist that still clings to the name of christianity."

 

I'm wondering why you call yourself a christian at all?  You like some of jesus' object lessons, but you don't believe 100% that he was the jewish god's son.  You don't take the bible as the word of god at all. 

 

And yet this: "The Bible has done its job very well. It has set the groundwork for my principles and morality. It has convinced me of my problems (that are many), and provided a potential solution...which I have found to be quite effective."

 

It really does sound like you're a deist still having trouble letting go of your childhood religion.  You reject much of the claims of divine miracles such as the flood, YEC, the highly improbable Luke 2, etc.  But yet you would like to hang onto the good teachings that the bible has.

 

I'll tell you this.  I'm an atheist, I reject all the god hypotheses presented to me thus far.  But the Koran, the Hadith, the bible, a little bit of what I know regarding the vedas, and every other 'spiritual' and religious text I've read had some good bits in it.  In some ways, they undoubtedly helped shape my morality.

 

But yet you still identify as a christian.  Is that out of cultural / childhood upbringing? 

 

And regarding RO, I would take what this guy is saying over what you say RO is.  What you've been describing as RO doesn't sound close to what this guy and the 'father of RO John Millbank' is saying.

 

 

[Roz]

And this is particularly laughable:  "What I'm not doing is throwing the Bible out the window because it was written by fallible men."

 

No one here throws out any piece of religious text because we see them for what they are.  Texts that humans wrote without any deity intervention needed at all. 

 

You're the only one here that keeps placing his own holy book in a pedestal.

 

Here's where you begin to unravel:  "Aesop's fables are very interesting. The difficulty with those is that they are not an attempt to simulate reality. They are merely stories where the author intended to convey a point, not write about actual events."

 

You clearly cannot clear your own christian indoctrination from your brain enough to even fathom the bible as being nothing more than fables.  Why?  Because in your mind fables "are merely stories where the author intended to convey a point, not write about actual events."

 

You mentioned that you take Matthew as a more reliable historian.  Do you believe what he (the author of Matthew) penned down for jesus' resurrection?  Do you believe that was a historical event? 

 

You still want to believe that the bible, your own holy texts, were written by people describing real events.  Are you willing to state for the record that when Mohammed wrote of how Gabriel came to him, that THAT was also a historical event?

[Roz]

And oh one last thing:  "People do not die as martyrs for things they know are lies."

 

Whether or not the martyrs took ideas as either truth or lies is not the issue.  People die for many causes they believe to be true all the time. 

That has no weight or basis on the question: is the idea itself true or not?

 

This is what we've been trying to explain to you for quite some time, but clearly it's taking a while to sink in.